What Kind of Undead was Jesus?

From amongst the classical typology, of course. In life Jesus was clearly a powerful cleric, capable at the very least of Create Food and Water, Dismissal, and Water Walk, as well as the various Cure and Remove Curse spells. We see no evidence of his having used the reverse forms of these spells – except perhaps in throwing the money lenders from the temple, which may have been simply mundane combat – but he must clearly have been an evil cleric, because he came back from the dead under his own magical powers, and the various guidebooks make it clear that this is something only ever done by evil clerics. He also appears to have come back in a form possessed of its previous memories and with a strong will, which rules out the possibility that he was just a restless spirit (reasonable to wonder, given the nature of his death). At the very least he was possessed of a vengeful will, but more likely he planned his return from the dead in some way.

So considering this, he must have been either a Wight, Vampire or Lich. But I’m pretty confident from the descriptions of his actions after his reanimation that he ventured out during the day, which rules out Vampirism. I’m not clear on whether Wights have a problem with sunlight, and the only extant description of a Wight – from Tolkien’s work, which addresses a time that I think predates christianity – isn’t clear on the matter as far as I can remember. But anyway, Wights don’t usually retain magical powers, and also we have no evidence that Undead Jesus could do level drains, and he did seem to at least retain possession of the Geas spell[1]. So, I’m thinking he must have been a lich.

This is bad news for the world, but it does explain how christendom spread so quickly after his reanimation. It might also explain some of the subsequent troubles between Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Clearly the elder figures of Judaism in that time were wizards of various kinds, and probably wanted rid of this troublesome lich; while I don’t think it’s a stretch to presume that Islam’s founder was some form of Arabian paladin (as well as a social reformer), so he would also have had problems with liches. Though his disputes with the elder figures of Judaism suggests he may have had a problem with magic-users too, so maybe he was a form of Barbarian[2].

So perhaps the great historical movements of the early christian era need to be viewed in terms of questing adventurers in classic classes, rather than this silly stuff about social-cultural movements etc. You heard it here first.

Now, the obvious result of this lich operating behind the veil of chrstianity is his influence on the popes. As time passed he would surely have crumbled to demi-lich status, and been interred somewhere in the vatican, from where he would control the various popes in a vice-like grip. Maybe even Avignon’s anti-pope represented a genuine clerical reaction against him? The problem of course with killing a lich is to find its phylactery, which I think many would construe as being the Turin shroud; but we’ve seen this is a fake, so what else could it be? My suspicion is that Jesus is a cunning old lich, and has disguised his phylactery in the form of the piss-christ. He knows that the greatest enemies of christendom are the liberal-arts media, so of course he has disguised his phylactery in a form that they will defend to the death.

Truly, 2000 year old Undead minds are devious.

Note that this theory isn’t without its detractors. Some experts believe that the Pope is a devil, possibly even Satan himself, exerting his will on earth through the powerful focal point of Scottish soccer. Despite the obvious improvements that the campaign against the Pope’s influence have brought to the Scottish game, I don’t think there is any evidence to support claims that Jesus, the Pope or any of the other elders of any of the main churches of Europe or the Middle East are Infernal Outsiders. Though I grant you the possibility that Tony Blair is.

In any case, the best solution is clearly to take off and nuke the entire site (the Vatican, and Scotland) from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure…

—

fn1: Or is it Quest? I always confuse which one is a clerical spell. But maybe Jesus was a cleric/magic-user. He seems to have had access to a lot of enchantment-type magic that is more traditionally seen amongst wizards…

fn2: I think the Barbarian character class is an interestingly misnamed one, because the word in western history implies a savage or wilderness-oriented figure, but the character class actually allows a much broader range of characters than this. For example, the bedouin or the tribesmen of Afghanistan during the era of the crusades could probably be construed as “barbarians” under the character class system, but I think they actually had quite a sophisticated written culture, and at least in Afghanistan they had cities, armies, orchards, etc. … see Flashman for descriptions of the palaces and cultural practices of Afghanistan in, e.g. the 19th century for an example of “enlightened” “barbarians”.

If you’re willing to consider Jesus as a Wizard/Cleric, then there is a possibility that he used a Chain Contingency spell (3 days after my death) with Raise Dead. I’d normally dismiss this possibility, but Aerie in Baldur’s Gate II could do it [1]

And Cleric’s get Quest.

Of course, the much simpler explanation is that Jesus was a wizard or had a wizard friend. Feign Death is only 3rd level by my vague memories.

And I think that’s the key point here – why must you indulge in the rampant level inflation required for Jesus to being a lich? Why can’t you just accept that great adventures can still happen when you can only case 1 fireball a day!?

[1] For the record, I don’t really believe this. There’s no way Wizard/Clerics should be allowed to use Contingency spells to “hang” cleric spells, it’s way too over powered.

Well there’s also the possibility that Jesus was a high level bard, and Mary Magdalene was a high-level cleric, and she came to his grave to cast raise dead on him. I don’t think we can dispute his levels, because he could cast Dismissal, which is like a 7th level spell or something. Jesus was clearly bad-arsed, unless you allow the possibility that he was a very tricky mid-level bard (a fun idea!) But there’s no way even a mid-level bard could toss anyone out of a temple, so…

Isn’t it generally accepted that adventuring in all flavours of D&D[1] gets boring pretty quickly after your first fireball?
—
fn1: except D&D 4e, which appears to get boring before you start character creation…

I’m not really seeing Jesus as a spoony bard [1]. Maybe he was a thief with a high use magic items score? Then he may have only found a cache of scrolls. That would explain why he didn’t make better use of his daily spell allowance.

ooh, I hadn’t thought of that. So then Mary Magdalene must have been a cleric; or he had some soul-in-a-box trick, maybe something his dad gave him, that resurrected him after he died.

The big flaw in this argument is that you have to explain the spread of christianity without the aid of a guiding evil genius. Any such explanation would not only be preposterous and beyond the ability of even the most fanciful of historians, but it would be completely out of place on this blog!

He’d be pissed wouldn’t he… (haha). I thought of this, but I think actually the crazy christians trying to destroy the piss-christ are a distraction organized by the Big J himself, from his lair beneath the Vatican. If christendom really wanted rid of the piss christ it would be done for. It’s a classic distraction…

On a tangentially related note can I just say that I hate Piss Christ and similar art works. It’s the classic case of of segment of society congratulating themselves for opposing a “power” when in fact they’re opposing a segment of society that has had century’s worth of work put into containing it. Insulting Christianity is like insulting a house cat, it can scratch, but it ain’t gonna kill you [1].

If they really want to be edgy then insult Islam, or (to someone prove I’m not a monomaniacal right wing nut case) Buddhism or Hinduism. They’re all massive religions with vested interests controlling the lives of billions. Teasing the one that your surest will not attack you isn’t art, it’s cowardice [2].

[1] assuming your not a first level commoner or wizard, but frankly dropping a torch on their toes can kill those losers so their pretty much living on luck anyway.

[2] On the other hand if the artist would like to advance reasons these religions shouldn’t be mentioned I’m all ears. But the only one I know of is “I live next to a Christian church, so I target them”. So, so much for multi-cultural society if our artists aren’t getting enough exposure to other religions.

Back on Jesus’s character class, what if he was a rogue with high use magic items and diplomacy/bluff scores? That’d explain both the intermittent magic usage and the successful spread of his religion after the fact.

Or we could attribute it to a range of factors outside the founders control. You know. Whatever works [1].

[1] As God tells Homer, 9 out of 10 religions fail in their first year.

I am also equivocal about the piss christ for similar reasons, with the additional consideration that I think we should all try and behave slightly nicely in public life, and pissing on your opponent’s religious iconography is not a way to promote dialogue[1]. Historically, the biggest achievements in containing the effect of the church have not been flagrant attacks on Jesus, but careful and reasoned attacks (which may or may not have been very angry) on the political views and especially the theology of the religion itself. For this reason I think that the storm of controversy over Henson’s photographs has much more to say about an important cultural issue (not religious in this case) than the piss-christ. And they’re much better art too.

However, I like peskiness, and I think peskiness in art is important, even if the installation itself is shit (or piss, in this case). So I’m kind of pro pissing on christ for that reason. Which makes me equivocal.

I also really hate the idea that Serrano should pick on other religions. I don’t know what this proves, for starters – he’s allowed to be angry about only one religion. But the thing about it that bothers me most is that, if you think pissing on someone’s iconography is wrong, then suggesting that they should go and piss on the Prophet as well is counter-productive – a typically adult response to something you think is offensive is not to demand more of it. Also, it’s silly because Jesus is a prophet in Islam too and greatly revered. So the piss-christ is a grave insult to Islam as well as to christianity. Of course, the right-wing nutters who demand Serrano depict Muhammed in art don’t want to admit that the piss-christ might offend muslims because it would mean admitting that Islam and Christianity have a lot more in common than they do differences. They might even have to follow up with a nuanced discussion of the historical origins of Islam, and its actually quite close relationship to chrstianity. Difficult ground for the Newt Gingrich’s of the world to cover.

Also, I doubt that Serrano is an atheist. I don’t know anything about him but my guess is that he’s a christian and was raised christian, and that means that he’s surely within his rights to piss on Jesus.

I like the idea that we could live in a multicultural society so successful that christians could piss on statues of Russell, Muslims could blow up effigies of buddha, and atheists could arrange mock orgies between all the major religious groups. But we don’t live in that kind of multicultural society yet and one of the central conceits of the (mostly, but not entirely) conservative-driven backlash against multiculturalism is that we are “a christian society founded on christian values.” If you want to attack this central conceit, then you need to attack christianity not islam. And when muslims are a minority living in a country where this claim is regularly made, that is simultaneously at war with a Muslim country, then I think it’s fair to say that you need to show different sensitivities towards Muslims than Christians. Just as no one in Australia right now should be making images critical of Shinto that show waves washing away shrines, because it’s just not nice.

So in that spirit, I think it would be better if a) non-Muslims avoided artistic depictions of the Prophet, b) non-christians avoided pissing on Jesus and c) atheists tried to engage in debate at a level slightly higher than that offered by Hitchens and Dawkins. Which, I’m glad to say, we mostly do! And I hope that this post can be seen as lightly humorous rather than deeply critical…

—
fn1: Perhaps this is not the most consistent position to take in a thread about whether Jesus was a Vampire?

“I also really hate the idea that Serrano should pick on other religions. I don’t know what this proves, for starters – he’s allowed to be angry about only one religion.”
I think that when we examine this on a single artist level, yeah. I can see that an artist can have a particular dislike of one religion. I just get suspicious when the vast majority of a group agrees that the “threat” from 100 years ago is the only one they’ll attack. It’s sort of like how a single commentator can be right wing if they want, but when you look at something like Fox news you’d say that there is a cultural problem that has been created by a single mindset (group-think) being adopted by the group. The comment isn’t on the individual, it’s on the art world with this being an example. If you can quote a couple of examples of art aiming or willing to offend Islam then I’m all ears. The only couple I know of are the Mo-toon cartoons and Salman Rushdie. Of course, the reason I know of those ones is they all resulted in death threats that forced people into hiding and (at least for the cartoons) prevented them being published by most major newspapers (by contrast I don’t know of anywhere that refused to show Piss Christ because of the risk) [1].

“…that means that he’s surely within his rights to piss on Jesus.”
I’m pretty certain neither of us hold the idea that you can only piss on the prophet most revered in the religion you were raised in. It’d be farcical test to meet: “Have you converted to Islam? OK, now you write the Satanic Verses.” or like becoming Jewish for the jokes.

“a) non-Muslims avoided artistic depictions of the Prophet, b) non-christians avoided pissing on Jesus and c) atheists tried to engage in debate at a level slightly higher than that offered by Hitchens and Dawkins.”
Hmm. I’d go with a) Muslims avoid artistic depictions of the Prophet, but accept that he was a historical figure that other people may want to do drawings of [2], b) people who want to piss on something have some consideration of others feelings and generally don’t do it unless there’s a reason they can supply [3], c) yeah Dawkins just manages to come across as really irritating [4].

[1] Getting into the issue of threats and how they impact showing the art is moving off topic, given we were discussing rights/wrongs of what art is allowed/presented. But it does tie back to the Western artistic worlds accepted limits.

[2] For Muslims to force an artistic ban on their prophet is the same as imposing a religious rule from their religion onto others. Sort of like banning homosexual marriage. And I think we share a viewpoint on that one…

[3] Despite my liberatian leanings, I’m willing to prevent “Cause I felt like it” being accepted as a valid reason – though I’ll concede I’m only willing to take that stance as a compromise with others. By myself I’d probably accept it – it’s not like it actually hurts anyone.

[4] His instance there is no God doesn’t mesh will with the ideal that “atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.” I fulminate against a wide variety of things and I do accept that if I were to turn that towards stamp collecting my posing insistent rants probably would qualify as a hobby.

The comment isn’t on the individual, it’s on the art world with this being an example.
I think there are two difficulties with this statement. The first is that, despite its much-vaunted left-winged-ness, the art world is primarily drawn from the white middle/upper class (or, in other countries, the upper/middle class of their dominant religion). This means they’re more likely to relate to the established religion that is valued by that class, whether through valorization or criticism. The second problem is that “islam” as an “issue” in western nations is extremely new, primarily stemming from 2001. Look at Australia’s political relationship with Islam for example – just 5 years before 2001, it wasn’t even on the cards. The main resistance to multiculturalism came from Pauline Hanson, who whinged incessantly about Asian immigration and didn’t give a crap about islam. I remember watching Bend it like Beckham and noticing Islam as a separate group being discussed in film for the first time – by Hindu Indians in Britain. It’s highly unlikely that an artist now in his 60s, born in New York city, was thinking about Islam at all when he made the piss christ – in 1987 (I checked his wiki). This is even true of the current crop of “mature” (as in, over 30) artists in the UK or Australia, whose whole school and university radicalism happened against a backdrop of zero concern about Islam. So it’s unsurprising that their artistic work reflects this.

And as you observe, we don’t actually know what’s going on in terms of critical thought in muslim countries, but it’s pretty likely that whatever is going on there does not involve pictures of the Prophet, since this would be seen even by genuine reformers as distracting from the main issue (through blasphemy). And it’s not like we haven’t seen evidence of conflict within Islam, being played out quite publicly e.g. in Iran during the election campaigns. So we can’t really say that the art world in other communities isn’t engaging in its own way with its own political/religious issues.

I don’t hold the idea that you can only piss on your own prophet, but I do hold the idea that people should take into account the context of their acts when they do these things, and the context now is a western war against Islam. To present a different version of this argument, do you think it would be responsible for an art gallery in Ambon, Indonesia (which has had deadly pogroms against christians in the last 10 years) to hold a piss-christ exhibition? Do you think the piss-christ would have a different meaning if it were produced by an Islamic artist[1] and exhibited in Ambon? Do you think that minority Serbs in mainly Muslim Bosnia-Herzegovina would see the piss-christ as “merely” a genuine critique of christianity, held in the spirit of religious inquiry, if it were produced by a muslim artist? Context is important for art, and the context of e.g. the Danish cartoons of Muhammed was that Denmark was part of a coalition that had invaded a majority muslim country and killed or helped kill a million people, half of whom were probably muslim. Certainly we don’t see the destruction of the buddhas of that desert town as a mere act of religious expression – we see it as an expression of the Taliban’s desire to eliminate all other religions in the area under their sway, and indicative of a potentially eliminationist attitude towards non-Muslims.

In Australia the context includes a distinctly anti-Muslim riot in 2006(?) that suggests a refusal to accept Islam into the mainstream. So, legitimate criticisms of Islam we may have, but they have to be phrased in a way that doesn’t make the adherents of that religion feel like the critique is just an excuse for blatant racism.

We’re all grown-ups here and I reckon that e.g. Australian atheists can present their problems with islamic theology without straying into the realms of blasphemy[2], even though we don’t accept it’s possible to blaspheme, and can be sensitive to issues of acceptance/discrimination that may affect the meaning of our critique of various religions in differing times and contexts. According to his wikipedia entry, Serrano was raised a strict Roman-Catholic. So maybe he can reasonably reserve some rights to blaspheme against his religion that Muslims or atheists could probably let slide? The issue of whether art galleries should support that kind of thing is a little different, I suppose…

We can also, I suppose, separate the issue of “but I wanna draw Muhammed!” from “But I wanna draw Muhammed shagging a pig!” (which was one of the cartoons, wasn’t it? As well as a really cheap image of the Prophet as terrorist). Given that the main efforts to do the former seem to have involved the latter, it’s reasonable for Muslims to think that maybe the process of depicting the Prophet as a child-fucking lunatic is tied in with the process of drawing the Prophet at all, and thus to conclude that non-Muslim transgressions on the rule of not depicting the Prophet are not, in general, being conducted in good faith.

Context is all, in the end… and artists who try to ignore context are, in my opinion, being irresponsible. I don’t think this includes Serrano, since he is working deliberately against the strictures of his own religious background; but it could include him if he did this work in a different place and time.

—
fn1: largely impossible, I suspect, since it would be considered blasphemous to piss on Jesus, and probably even producing images of him is frowned upon under Islam, is my guess

fn2: Actually, I’m not sure if depicting the Prophet is blasphemy or just poor form.

“The second problem is that “islam” as an “issue” in western nations is extremely new”
Islam as an “issue” is new, but Piss Christ was made in 1987 and The Satanic Verses put Rushdie into hiding in 1989 and got its Japanese translator killed in 1991. So unless Osama has access to a time machine I think we can probably concede that Islam was something you didn’t make a huge amount of fun about before 2001 either.

Furthermore, my comment was in relation to other religions in general, with Islam being a specific example. Why would Christianity register as an issue in 1987 over Buddhism? Sure, church attendance rates have sunk since 1987, but it’s not like they were huge in the 80s either.

“To present a different version of this argument, do you think it would be responsible for an art gallery in Ambon, Indonesia (which has had deadly pogroms against christians in the last 10 years) to hold a piss-christ exhibition?”
Sorry, but maybe you’ve missed the point of your analogy here. If Ambon ran a pogrom against Christians and then showed art that pissed them off it’s called rubbing salt on the wounds. Sure it’s inconsiderate, but from the info you’ve provided I’m not getting a vibe that Christians are issuing any death threats in Ambon. I’m sort of getting the feeling their receiving them.

Your analogy doesn’t work as in the situations you mention, no one cares if there is a distasteful art show next to the mass grave. They’re too focused on the mass grave.

Frankly if I had a pogrom against me and my tormentors offered to stop the pogrom and start an art program insulting me which I was allowed to match with insulting art in return I think I’d be over the moon. Hell, if they just diverted their efforts from the pogrom to a painting program I’d consider it at least a smaller evil!

“So, legitimate criticisms of Islam we may have, but they have to be phrased in a way that doesn’t make the adherents of that religion feel like the critique is just an excuse for blatant racism.”
My problem here is your definition of “phrased in a way that doesn’t make the adherents of that religion feel like the critique” is my definition of “stifling legitimate criticisms”. And by the way, I regard this as an issue of doctrine and your questioning of it is insulting my way of life and oppressing me. Given this is in the context of your blog where you hold all the power I think you should exercise some restraint and agree that my viewpoint is valid, otherwise you’re oppressing me. [1]

“So maybe he can reasonably reserve some rights to blaspheme against his religion that Muslims or atheists could probably let slide?”
See, this is just “you can only piss on your own prophet again.” Sod that.

““But I wanna draw Muhammed shagging a pig!” (which was one of the cartoons, wasn’t it? As well as a really cheap image of the Prophet as terrorist).”
As I understood it, two such images were added by the Muslims who raised the profile of the issue as the original cartoons weren’t offensive enough. We’d need to check the original cartoons against the Iranian/Al-Jazera list to confirm that though.

“Context is all, in the end”
This is a recipe for paralysis. The context of the art is set by the time and place it is viewed, but the artist can only be aware of the time and place he created it. For example, a Dutch cartoonist may be working under a context of “Hey, I’m in Holland and it is funny that there are no lame jokes about Muhammad.” But then someone in the Middle East decides his pictures need to be spread to every idiot who could possibly want him dead and he finds the context is really “Hey, I’m in hiding for the rest of my life because the entire world is the high street in Tehran.”

“Actually, I’m not sure if depicting the Prophet is blasphemy or just poor form”
Part of the problem is the definition varies depending on how militant Iran is feeling on a given day. My understanding is the restriction is in place to prevent veneration of the image. Christianity has a similar restriction. And much like Christianity, in Islam it has been frequently ignored with absolutely no effect (for example, by Muslim artists).

[1] This is an example of why I don’t trust feeling based arguments around such issues. Who cares how I feel? What about if I’m just a massively overly sensitive asshole who’s making vexatious spurious arguments? I think we can all agree this is the case here, but I’d go further and say it should be the starting assumption in such cases.

Right! So I’ve addressed the issue of christianity’s relevance compared to other religions in a separate post, primarily so I can have a platform to rave about heavy metal. Yay. Moving right along…

about Ambon… no, I’m not saying here that pissing on Jesus is the same thing as killing his followers, I’m saying that in this situation one would not construe the piss christ as a legitimate criticism of christianity[1] but as a deliberate piece of hate speech. If this parallel bothers you too much then consider the situation where the pogroms are done and the ground has settled, then suddenly an art gallery decides to run the piss christ. Would you then think of it as an attempt to start a detailed discussion of the flaws of your religion, or an attempt to incite another pogrom? If it were painted by an atheist in this case, you might think that it were an atheist leveraging a very precarious social situation to the benefit of their own career. You probably would see it in a slightly different light to the way, say, an IT worker in Australia sees it.

You say

“phrased in a way that doesn’t make the adherents of that religion feel like the critique” is my definition of “stifling legitimate criticisms”

but this is a leap, I think. Choosing not to piss on Jesus is not the same as having your legitimate criticisms stifled. It may be that what happened to Rushdie was; certainly, an atmosphere where you don’t speak out because even the smallest opinion earns the risk of death is stifling. But absent a political campaign of repression (which is something I think we earlier decided to ignore for now), then it’s not necessary for a request to “phrase that differently” to be a stifling of legitimate criticisms. As an example, you could write a book about how black people are dumber than white people and call it “The Bell Curve,” or you could write the same book and call it “N***s are stupid.” The former is a slightly less offensive way of phrasing a “legitimate criticism” than the latter, right? Now it may be that the book is such a dodgy hit job that it’s not a legitimate criticism regardless of how politely it’s written. But asking people not to refer to black people with offensive words is not “stifling legitimate criticism” and the same thing applies to the piss christ, cartoons, etc. Obviously it’s harder with art because images are a complicated thing to judge these issues against, but I think you and I both agree that the piss christ is the wrong side of the line. I would say that the Prophet shagging a pig is also the wrong side of that line.

Which isn’t to say people should be prevented from drawing these pictures (either by Muslims or by government censors or christians). But I think they should consider whether what they’re doing enhances art, debate, or criticism; and if they’re going to draw those pictures during a time of war against the affected group, they shouldn’t be surprised if they stir up a bit of resentment; and if they don’t realize that the affected group view the war situation as an issue and have a bit of a problem with pictures of their most revered prophet fucking animals, then probably (and I’m going out on a limb here) they aren’t that qualified to present “legitimate criticisms” of Islam and they probably can’t expect their art to be worthy of a great deal of sympathy for the criticism it’s receiving[2]. And they should probabl think that if they believe art deserves special consideration in our society as a noble form of social critique, they should aim to produce a slightly higher stand of more informed critique.

As I understood it, two such images were added by the Muslims who raised the profile of the issue
I won’t put a link to the cartoons but you can find them on wikipedia, and one of them is definitely an image of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban. This is, frankly, a der Sturmer level of caricature[3], and they will be viewed as and essentially serve the same purpose. You don’t publish shit like that and expect to be free of criticism, and no it’s not legitimate criticism, especially when you’re fielding troops in a muslim country.

Regarding context… you can’t argue against context in the interpretation of the pictures but for context in the interpretation of the artist’s motives:

I just get suspicious when the vast majority of a group agrees that the “threat” from 100 years ago is the only one they’ll attack

—
fn1: Assuming that pissing on jesus is a legitimate criticism in some other circumstance, a point we’ve been conveniently ignoring up till now for the benefit of argument; at some point we should deal with this perhaps more central issue by pissing on Serrano and asking him if he approves of our form of art criticism

fn2: and no, that’s not a suggestion that I approve of killing people who draw pictures I don’t like

fn3: and no, that’s not a suggestion that the Danish newspaper and der Sturmer are the same…